See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259179319

Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam

Chapter · February 2013

DOI: 10.5772/54279

CITATIONS READS

16 2,577

2 authors:

Huynh Viet Khai Mitsuyasu Yabe

Can Tho University Kyushu University
70 PUBLICATIONS 656 CITATIONS 111 PUBLICATIONS 1,538 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Huynh Viet Khai on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter 3

Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production

in Vietnam

Huynh Viet Khai and Mitsuyasu Yabe

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

1. Introduction

Vietnam has achieved the average GDP growth rate of 6.71% per year. The industrial sector
has mainly contributed economic development in Vietnam, with annual growth of 12% during
the period of 200-2009. In line with its industrialization and modernization policies, Vietnam
has rapidly changed economic structure from agriculture base to industrial economy. The
industrial and construction sector only contributed 26 percent of national GDP in 1986, but it
rapidly increases to 40.3 percent in 2009.
Economic development has brought many benefits to Vietnam. Income, public transportation
and, in general, quality of life have gradually improved while the percentage of people below
the poverty threshold has reduced. However, there have also been many negative consequen‐
ces of rapid industrialization, particularly on agriculture and ecosystem health, because of the
exploitation of natural resources and pollution. The two biggest cities in Vietnam, Ha Noi and
Ho Chi Minh, have been ranked as the worst cities in Asia for dust pollution (The World Bank,
2008). Within Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, the largest city, is at the top of the national pollution list
(The World Bank, 2007). This pollution, into the air, water and land, is released by various,
large industries. For instance, footwear manufacturing releases 11% of the air pollution load,
10% of the land pollution load and 6% of the water pollution load, while the plastic products
manufacturing industry produces 10, 13 and 9% of the air, land and water pollution load,
respectively. The main pollution sources do not necessarily come from the largest industries.
The cement industry, which only has 12 factories and employs 0.5% of the provincial work‐
force, releases 24% of the air pollution load (ICEM, 2007). Similarly, the 160 paper factories
employ only 0.8% of the provincial workers but contribute 14% of the water pollution load.
According to the Department of Science, Technology, and Environment of Tay Ninh, since
almost all industrial zones have not installed wastewater treatment systems in Vietnam, the

© 2013 Khai and Yabe; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
62 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

existence of industrial wastewater contamination appears almost everywhere. Wastewater

from thousands of industrial facilities in 30 industrial areas and from small factories and
businesses in the basin is the main source of pollution in the Dong Nai river of Ho Chi Minh
City 1. The untreated wastewater contaminating oil from Hai Au concrete factory has been
released directly into paddy fields approximately 200m3/day and 1,500 m3/day for Phuoc Long
textile firm. However, it is difficult to know the actual damage and loss due to the contami‐
nation of untreated wastewater from industrial activities in Vietnam (Quang, 2001).
There have been a number of empirical agricultural studies concerning environmental
problems, such as soil degradation, wind and water erosion in the world; however, few have
specifically examined the impact of industrial pollution. Bai (1988) conducted field experi‐
ments in wheat lands irrigated with wastewater from the Liangshui River, the Tonghui River
and the Wanquan River. He reported that wastewater irrigation caused a reduction in wheat
yield by 8–17.1%. Similar studies in the Geobeidian area of the Tonghui River and the Yizhuang
area of the Lianghe River reported that yields of wheat and rice cultivated in unpolluted soils
in the sewage-irrigated area decrease by about 10% of the yields obtained in clean water-
irrigated areas. In the sewage-irrigated area with polluted soils, yields of wheat and rice grown
reduce by 40.6% and 39% of those in clean irrigation areas.
Chang et al. (2001) analyzed the impact of industrial pollution on agriculture, human health
and industrial activities in Chongqing. To determine the effect of sewage-irrigation, they
proposed expressing yield reductions as a function of the comprehensive water pollution
index. Using this approach, reductions in yield due to sewage irrigation were about 10% for
wheat and 30% for rice and vegetables. To evaluate the effects of polluted water irrigation,
Lindhjem (2007) compared crop quality and quantity between a wastewater-irrigated area and
a clean water-irrigated area. The total loss of corn and wheat production was estimated to be
RMB 360 per mu, of which RMB 285 was caused by reduction in quantity, and RMB 75 was
the reduction in quality. This paper also cites the study of Song (2004) that used dose-response
functions to estimate the reductions in quantity and quality of crops from polluted water
irrigation. Water pollution decreased rice production by 20% and quality by about 4%.
A study by The World Bank (2007) also used dose-response functions to calculate the economic
losses from crop damage caused by water pollution, in terms of both reductions in crop
quantity and quality (excess pollutant levels and substandard nutritional value). The economic
cost of wastewater irrigation in China was estimated to be about 7 billion RMB annually for
the four major crops (wheat, corn, rice, and vegetables). Reddy and Behera (2006) evaluated
the impact of water pollution on rural communities in India, in terms of agricultural produc‐
tion, human heath, and livestock, using the effects on production, replacement costs and
human capital approaches. The study estimated that the total loss per household per annum
due to water pollution was $282.5, of which $213.2 was from agriculture, $16.3 from livestock
and $53 from human health.
There has been some studies in recent years on industrial pollution in Vietnam such as
the report written by Thong and Ngoc (2004) presented a descriptive analysis of data col‐

1 The speech of Dr. Trinh Le, the Institute of Tropical Technology and Environmental Protection.
 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 63
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

lected from 32 industrial estates in southern Vietnam to determine the factors affecting
investment on wastewater treatment plants. It performed that water pollution was a seri‐
ous problem in the big industrial estates of Ho Chi Minh City, Binh Duong, Dong Nai
and Ba Ria-Vung Tau Provinces, and that financial constraints and lack of space were the
main reasons why many small and medium-sized enterprises did not invest in wastewa‐
ter treatment systems. Hung et al.(2008) studied the effects of trade liberalization on the
environment, using data from the Viet Enterprise Survey of 2002 and the World Bank’s
Industrial Pollution Projection System. They found that trade liberalization led to greater
pollution and environmental degradation but that the Vietnamese people have gradually
recognized the importance of environmental protection.

However, because of a lack of information on the costs of pollution, national and local
authorities in Vietnam have not paid much attention to pollution control measures. In this
study, we review the literature on this topic and estimate the damage of rice production due
to water pollution. Our findings could help governmental bodies enforce existing water
pollution regulations, for example, TCVN 5945 on water pollution standards or Decree 67 on
wastewater pollution charges, also help recognize and understand the failure of some of the
current environmental policies in Vietnam. Our study could also provide useful information
to authorities, such as the Natural Resources and Environment, and industries to manage water
pollution and data for cost-benefit analyses of treatment projects in the industrial zones of
Vietnam.

2. Evaluation concept

The total economic loss of rice production includes three factors. First, a reduction in crop
quantity assumes that water pollution decreases rice yield. Second, a reduction in rice quality,
which is measured as price, assumes that the lower price of rice in a particular region could
reflect reduced rice quality due to water pollution. Third, an increase in input costs assumes
that farms may attempt to compensate for the possible productivity losses by implementing
activities that are capable of offsetting this possible loss but are more costly to implement. The
expectation of the profit loss is summarized by the following formula:

( )( ) (
p p = P - DP Q - DQ - C + DC )
= PQ - P ´ DQ - DP ´ Q + DP ´ DQ - C - DC
(1)
( ) (
= PQ - C - P ´ DQ + DP ´ Q + DC + DP ´ DQ)
= pn - Profit loss

=> Profit loss = P ´ DQ + DP ´ Q + DC

(2)
= Quantity loss + Quality loss + Cost increase
64 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

where πn and πp are the rice profits in the non-polluted and polluted areas. Because ΔP×ΔQ is
small compared with the other parts of the equation, it can be ignored and assumed to be 0.

However, it is complicated to estimate quality loss through the proxy of price because there
are many other unobservable factors, excepting water pollution, which affect the price of rice.
Thus, the study only calculates the three elements affected by water pollution:
• Quantity loss: Water pollution causes a decrease in rice yield. The production function
approach is used to estimate the loss of rice yield.

• Cost increase: Since farms may aim and indeed be able to compensate for the possible
productivity losses by implementing activities which are capable of offsetting this possible
loss but are more costly to implement. In such circumstances, because it is not productivity
which will be impacted, but production costs, cost function approach is applied to assess
the impacts of pollution in economic terms.

• Profit loss: This is defined as total loss of net economic return estimated by the comparison
of profit functions between two selected areas (one is considered as the polluted, other is
the non-polluted area). The difference in rice profits of two regions is considered as total
loss of net economic return due to industrial pollution.

3. Empirical model

We surveyed rice farmers in two areas with the assumption that they had the same natural
environment conditions and social characteristics, and only differed with respect to pollution.
One area was considered to be the polluted area, receiving wastewater from nearby industrial
parks, while the other area was assumed to be the non-polluted area, being distant from sources
of industrial pollutants. The productivity loss of rice production caused by water pollution
was estimated by the difference in rice yield between the two regions (Translog production
function approach). The similar calculation was applied for cost increase and profit loss due
to water pollution by applying the methods of Cobb-Douglas cost function and translog profit
function respectively.

3.1. Production function approach

The production function approach is that industrial activities possibly have a negative impact
on the outputs, cost and profit of producers through the effect of environment. Environment af‐
fects goods or services existing in the market through the value change of their outputs, for in‐
stance, the reduced value of fish caught because of river pollution. The production function
approach is often used to estimate the effect of environment change on soil erosion, deforesta‐
tion, fisheries, the impact of air and water pollution on agriculture and so on (Bateman et al.,
2003)

A literature search on the production function approach in rice production Vietnam was
conducted to make sure that relevant variables will be included in the farm survey question‐
 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 65
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

naire and to examine the suitability of existing rice production models for the research. There
are a number of studies related to rice production in Vietnam. Kompas (2004) and Linh
(2007) used a stochastic production frontier to estimate the technical efficiency of rice produc‐
tion in Vietnam. Do and Bennett (2007) used a production function approach with flood
duration and relative location of upstream and downstream farmers variables to estimate the
cost of changing wetland management, representing the reduced income of rice production in
the Mekong River Delta. The loss of rice productivity was estimated based on the differences
in rice yield between upper and lower of the Tram Chim park dyke. The results showed that
the rice productivity in the lowering of park dyke decreased 0.06 tons per hectare per annum,
which led to the profit loss of VND 0.07 million per hectare per annum. These three studies
used the Cobb-Douglas functional form of the rice production function approach. This study
uses a translog functional form and does test for checking the existence of Cobb-Douglass. The
model takes the basic form:

Y = f ( L , K , I , Z , E, F) (3)

where Y is the rice yield of a farmer in the studied year (tones/ha), L is the number of labors
for rice cultivation (man-days/ha), K is capital input (VND/ha), I is a vector of material inputs
as seeds (kg/ha), fertilizers (kg/ha), herbicide (ml/ha) and pesticides (ml/ha), Z is a vector of
social-economic characteristics of farmers, and E is a vector of farming conditions, and F is the
relative location of farms (polluted site = 1, non-polluted site = 0)

The test for the existence of quantity loss due to water pollution is:

H 0 : Quantity loss = 0 or Coef. of F = 0

(4)
H1 : Quantity loss > 0 or Coef. of F < 0

The reduced yield of rice is defined as the difference in the average rice yield between the non-
polluted and polluted site. It is estimated by following equation:

DY = f ( L , K , I , Z , E , F = 0) - f ( L , K , I , Z , E , F = 1) (5)

where ΔY is the average yield loss caused by water pollution (kg/ha); L ¯ , K̄ , Ī , Z̄ , Ē are the
average of labor, capital input, material inputs, social-economic characteristics, and farming
conditions, respectively.

As mentioned earlier, a translog functional form is used in the study. The production functional
form in the polluted and non-polluted areas is written as followed (Tim & Battese, 2005):

1
ln(Y ) = a 0 + a1 ln( L) + a 2 ln( K ) + a 3 ln( I ) + a11 ( ln( L) ) + a12 ln( L) ln( K ) + a13 ln( L) ln( I ) +
2

2
5 4 (6)
1 1
+ a 22 ( ln( K ) ) + a 23 ln( K ) ln( I ) + a 33 ( ln( I ) ) + å b k Zk + å d h Eh + g F
2 2

2 2 k =1 h =1
66 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

where Y, L, K, I, F are the same as in the above equations and Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4 are the variables of
the gender (1 = male, 0 = female), the age (years), the number of school year (years), attending
trainings (1 = Yes, 0 = No) of rice households, and E1, E2, E3, E4 are the variables of serious
diseases happening during the study year (1 = Yes, 0 = No), rice monoculture (1 = yes, 0 = No),
soil quality (1 = fertile soil, 0 = other soils), off-farm income ratio.

Some restrictions are used to check the constant returns to scale:

a1 + a 2 + a 3 = 1
a11 + a12 + a13 = 0
(7)
a12 + a 22 + a 23 = 0
a13 + a 23 + a 33 = 0

Then, the following restriction is applied to test the existence of Cobb-Douglass function:

a11 = a12 = a13 = a 22 = a 23 = a 33 = 0 (8)

3.2. Replacement Cost (RC)

Replacement cost approach is defined as payment for restoring original environment (unpol‐
luted state) if it has already been damaged. The costs of moving away from the polluted area
suffered by the victims of environmental damage or actual spending on safeguards against
environmental risks are called replacement costs (Bateman et al., 2003; Winpenny, 1991). In the
study written by Reddy and Behera (2006), the replacement cost method is used to estimate
the damage costs of pump sets due to water pollution. In this study, farmers in the polluted
areas might spend more input costs for the compensation of rice productivity loss because they
directly use the polluted water for irrigation. Thus, it is assumed that the costs of farmers in
polluted areas are more than those in the non-polluted areas. In this case, the replacement cost
is estimated by using the cost function approach. The basic form of cost function is given by:

C = C(Ws , Wh , W f , Wp , Y , Z , E , F) (9)

where C is the total cost of a farmer (VND/ha), Ws is the price of seed (VND/kg), Wh is the price
of herbicide (VND/100ml), Wf is the price of fertilizers (VND/kg), Wp is the price of pesticides
(VND/100ml), Y is the rice yield of a farmer in the studied year (tones/ha), Z is a vector of
social-economic characteristics of farmers, and E is a vector of farming conditions, F is the
relative location of farms (polluted site = 1, non-polluted site = 0)

The test for the existence of cost increase due to water pollution is:

H 0 : Cost increase = 0 or Coef. of F = 0

(10)
H1 : Cost increase > 0 or Coef. of F > 0
 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 67
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

The increase in input costs is defined as the difference of the average cost between heavily
polluted and less polluted areas. It is estimated by following equation:

DC = C(Ws , Wh , W f , Wp , Y , Z , E , F = 1) - C(Ws , Wh , W f , Wp , Y , Z , E , F = 0) (11)

where ΔC is the increase of the average cost per ha because of water pollution (VND/ha);
W̄ s , W̄ h , W̄ f , W̄ p , Ȳ , Z̄ , Ē are the average price of seed, herbicide, fertilizer, pesticides,
social-economic characteristics, and farming conditions, respectively.

The Cobb-Douglas formal function is applied to estimate the cost function in the study (Tim
& Battese, 2005):

3 3
ln(C ) = j 0 + j1 ln(Ws ) + j 2 ln(Wh ) + j 3 ln(W f ) + j 4 ln(Wp ) + j 5 ln(Y ) + å b k Zk + å d h Eh + g F (12)
k =1 h =1

where C, Ws, Wh, Wf, Wp, F are the same as in the above equation and Z1, Z2, Z3, are, the age
(years), the number of school year (years), attending trainings (1 = Yes, 0 = No) of rice house‐
holds, and E1, E2, E3, are serious diseases happening during the year (1 = Yes, 0 = No), rice
monoculture (1 = yes, 0 = No), soil quality (1 = fertile soil, 0 = other soils) respectively.

3.3. Profit function approach

Net economic return is defined as revenues from rice minus the cost of producing rice. It will
be identified by a profit function approach. The profit loss is estimated by the following basic
profit function:

p * = p ( W *, C , Z , E, F ) (13)

where π* is normalized profit defined as gross revenue minus variable cost divided by farm-
specific output price, W* is a vector of variable input prices divided by output price, C is a
vector of fixed factors of the farm, Z is a vector of social-economic characteristics of farmers,
E is a vector of farming conditions, F is the relative location of farms (polluted site = 1, non-
polluted site = 0).

Hypothesis for the existence of profit loss due to water pollution is:

H 0 : p n = p p or Profit Loss = 0 or Coef. of F = 0

(14)
H1 : p n > p p or Profit Loss > 0 or Coef. of F < 0

The profit loss due to water pollution is defined by the difference in profit between the polluted
and non-polluted areas. It is estimated by the equation:
68 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

Dp * = p ( W *, C , Z , E , F = 0 ) - p ( W *, C , Z , E , F = 1) (15)

where Δπ * is Profit loss in 1000 VND/ha. W̄ * , C̄, Z̄ , Ēare the average prices of inputs, the
average of the fixed factors, the social-economic characteristics of farmers, the farming
conditions, respectively.

We use the translog profit functional form. The formula is given as (Rahman, 2002, Surjit &
Carlos, 1981)

4
1 4 4 4 6
ln p * = a 0 + åa j ln Wj * + åå t jk ln Wj * ln Wk * + ååf jl ln Wj * ln Cl +
j =1 2 j =1 k =1 j =1 l =1
(16)
6
1 6 6 3 4
+ å b l ln Cl + åå j lt ln Cl ln Ct + å v mZm + åhn En + g F
l =1 2 l =1 t =1 m =1 n =1

where π* is the restricted profit (total revenue minus total cost of variable inputs) normalized
by price of output (P); Wj* is the price of the j th input (Wj) normalized by the output price (P);
j is the price of seed (1), the price of herbicides (2), the price of fertilizer (3), the price of pesticide
(4); Cl is the quantity of fixed input, where l is total amount of seed used (1), total amount of
herbicides used (2), total amount of fertilizer used (3), total amount of pesticides used (4), the
number of man-days for rice production (5), the money of machines and services at all stages
of rice production (6); Z1, Z2, Z3 are the age (years), the number of school year (years), and
attendance at training sessions (1 = Yes, 0 = No) of rice households, respectively; and E1, E2,
E3, E4 are the variables of serious disease incidence happening during the study year (1 = Yes,
0 = No), rice monoculture (1 = Yes, 0 = No), soil quality (1 = fertile soil, 0 = other soils), and off-
farm income ratio, respectively.

Then, the following restriction is applied to test the existence of the Cobb-Douglass function:

t jk = f jl = j lt = 0 (17)

4. Study site and data description

4.1. Study site

In the Mekong River Delta, there are approximately 33 industrial parks, which constitute 9.5%
of the total industrial parks of the country. Almost all of these 33 parks have no wastewater
treatment system. The industrial parks in Can Tho city have released the biggest pollution
loads, and the province is ranked in the top 10 most polluted provinces in Vietnam (Table 1).
Can Tho is also one of the biggest rice producers in the Mekong River Delta. Because of these
reasons, Can Tho was selected as the study site.
 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 69
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

Province Air index Land index Water index Overall

Ho Chi Minh city 1 1 1 1

Hanoi 5 2 2 2
HaiPhong 2 6 4 3
Binh Duong 6 3 3 4
Dong Nai 4 4 5 5
Thai Nguyen 3 5 7 6
PhuTho 7 7 6 7
Da Nang 10 9 8 8
Ba RiaVung Tau 9 8 10 9
Can Tho 8 10 9 10

Note: The pollution loads released to air, land and water were estimated for all 64 provinces in Vietnam, and then
pollution indexes were calculated and rankings were made.

Source: ICEM, 2007

Table 1. Top 10 most polluted provinces in Vietnam

Zones Size Main activities Water treatments

Tra Noc 1 135 ha Processing, electron, clothes No a

Tra Noc 2 165 ha Machinery No a
Hung Phu 1 262 ha Harbor, Store No
Hung Phu 2 212 ha Machinery No
Hong Bang 38.2 ha Consumer goods No a
Thot Not 150 ha Processing, clothes, shoes No a

a
The available decision and acceptation of local authorities to evaluate the impact of environmental pollution.

Source: Resource and Environment Department of Can Tho City (2008)

Table 2. The industrial zones in Can Tho city

There are six industrial parks in Can Tho (Table 2), which mainly comprise agricultural and
fishery processing industries, clothes and consumer goods manufacturing industries. Almost
none of the industrial zones and industrial corporations located near human residences have
installed wastewater treatment systems. There has been little management of toxic waste or
water pollution by local authorities and business. Tra Noc 1 (built in 1995) and Tra Noc 2 (built
in 1999) industrial zones have only recently been acknowledged by the Department of
Resources and Environment while Thot Not has been considered by Can Tho authorities to
evaluate the impact of environmental pollution (Resource and Environment department of
Can Tho city, 2008). As a consequence, Tra Noc 1 and 2 have released large volumes (1000s
m3) of various waste products directly into the river (Tuyen, 2010).
70 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

4.2. Data collection

The study region covers the area within and around Tra Noc 1 and Tra Noc 2 industrial zones,
which are two of the greatest polluters in Can Tho. People living in this area have suffered
various financial impacts from the pollution: reduced crop yields, the use of cattle and
agricultural equipment such as pump sets, contamination of drinking water, and increased
incidence of human diseases and deaths directly and indirectly caused by water pollution.
Farmers were randomly selected for interview from two areas (Phuoc Thoi and Thoi An) with
similar social and natural conditions (e.g. the same social and farming culture, ethnicity, type
of soil). The selection of the polluted and non-polluted area was based on their distance from
industrial zones, and on the recommendation or suggestion of local authorities and farmers.
Some of the villages in Phuoc Thoi are heavily polluted by wastewater from the TraNoc 1 and
2 industrial zones. The villages in Thoi An are further away from the industrial zones than
Phuoc Thoi and deemed to represent a non-polluted area (see Figure 1).
The group of fourteen interviewers and three local guide persons includes ten final year
students, four staffs of School of Economics and Business Administration, Can Tho University,
one local authority from people’s committee, and two local farmers.
The questionnaire composes four main parts. In the first and second parts, the personal and
farming information of household such as address, age, gender, training and so on and the
situation of environmental pollution were interviewed. The inputs and output of rice produc‐
tion were collected in the three part and income from other activities obtained in the final
section of questionnaire.
The household survey took 3 months to complete from January to March 2010 and was divided
into two main reporting periods. The first period was called as pilot-survey in January 2010.
The aims of this interview were to check and then correct the questionnaire more clearly and
concisely, and to help interviewers get used to and understand the content of questionnaire.
After the interviewers were trained how to ask by using questionnaire, about 30 farmers were
interviewed. The revised questionnaire was used in the second period from February to March
2010. In total, 364 rice farmers, consisting of 214 farmers in the polluted and 150 farmers in the
non-polluted area, were interviewed in February and March 2010. Household data were
collected on household level information related to production costs and income as well as the
social and economic characteristics of the farmers, and their perceived damages and losses due
to water pollution.
Table 3 showed the water quality index of the polluted and non-polluted area. The concen‐
trations of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in the water refer to the concentrations of solid
particles that can be trapped by a filter. This can be a problem because high concentrations of
TSS can block sunlight from reaching submerged vegetation. This causes a reduction in the
photosynthesis rate, and therefore less dissolved oxygen released into the water by plants. If
bottom dwelling plants are not exposed to some light, the plants stop producing oxygen and
die. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is the amount of oxygen used during the oxidation of
organic matter and inorganic chemicals such as ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N). High COD
indicates a greater pollution load.
 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 71
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

Figure 1. Map of the Study Site

TSS (mg/l) COD (mg/l) NH3-N (mg/l)

The polluted area (PhuocThoi) (1)

- Sewer mouth 145 720 13.29
- Primary affected water source (2) 50 50 1.23
- Secondary affected water source (3)
60 48 0.63
The non-polluted area (Thoi An)(4) 22 5.1 0.16
Limitation value (TCVN5942,1995)
- Class A (5) 20 10 0.05
- Class B (6)
80 35 1

Notes:
(1) Measured on January 17th, 2007 (Nga et al., 2008)
(2) The region receives wastewater directly from the industrial park.
(3) The region receives polluted water from the primary affected water source regions.
(4) Measured on January 27th, 2007 (Lang et al., 2009)
(5) Values in Class A are from the surface water used for domestic water supply with appropriate treatments.
(6) Values in Class B are from the surface water used for purposes other than domestic water supply. Water quality
criteria for aquatic life are specified in a separate index.

Table 3. Water quality of the polluted and non-polluted area

72 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

In the polluted area, the concentrations of TSS, COD and NH3-H in the sewer mouth, the
primary affected water source and the secondary affected water source regions were mostly
much higher than those of the standard water quality (see Table 3). This indicated that our
selected pollution area site was heavily polluted. The concentrations of TSS, COD and NH3-
N in the sewer mouth region were nearly 2-fold, over 20-fold and 13-fold higher than those of
the standard water quality of class B, respectively.

Differences in the water quality index between the polluted and non-polluted area indicate
that the water quality in the non-polluted area was much higher than that in the polluted area.
However, the concentrations of TSS and NH3-N in the non-polluted were slightly higher than
those of the Class A standard. This may be caused by non-point source pollutants, for instance,
fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide released by agricultural activities in the region.

Variable Description Unit

Y Total yield per hectare Ton/hectare
P Price of rice Thousand VND/ton
C Total cost Thousand VND/ha
π Total profit Thousand VND/ha
Cs Total amount of seed used Kg/ha
Ch Total amount of herbicides used Equivalent unit of 100 ml/ha
Cf Total amount of fertilizer used Kg/ha
Cp Total amount of pesticide used Equivalent unit of 100 ml/ha
Cl The number of man-days for rice production day/ha
The money of machines and services at all stages of
Cc Thousand VND/ha
rice production
Ws Price of seed Thousand VND/kg
Wh Price of herbicide Thousand VND/100ml
Wf Price of fertilizer Thousand VND/kg
Wp Price of pesticide Thousand VND/100ml
Age The age of respondents Years
Education The number of school year of respondents Years
Training Respondents attending trainings 1= Yes, 0 = No
Mono Rice monoculture 1= Yes, 0 = No
Diseases Diseases happening during the study year 1= Yes, 0 = No
Off-farm ratio The ratio of off-farm income
Soil Soil quality 1 = fertile soil, 0 = other soils

Table 4. Description of variables used in rice production models

Table 4 showed the descriptions of variables in rice production models. The volumes of
herbicide and pesticide used have measurement units of equivalent units of 100 ml per hectare
per crop, based on farmers’ reports and experts’ recommendations. This is because farmers
use various types of herbicides and pesticides (mixed with water or as a powder), and
sometimes mix them together, which means that it is difficult to estimate exact amounts.
 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 73
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

Variables Non-polluted area Polluted area t-value

Y 5.88 4.99 -7.31***
P 4,157.79 4,060.89 -3.06***
C 10,909.44 10,563.61 -0.84
π 13,623.91 9,759.35 -8.37***
Cs 224.41 206.42 -2.37**
Ch 10.43 11.70 1.33
Cf 475.87 463.76 -0.53
Cp 77.26 70.23 -1.24
Cl 29.03 32.95 1.39
Cc 3283.02 3436.20 1.06
Ws 5.46 5.21 -1.34
Wh 32.79 32.47 0.21
Wf 9.42 9.54 0.92
Wp 24.86 21.70 -1.85*
Age 48.04 48.99 0.81
Education 6.33 6.07 -0.87
Training 0.49 0.35 -2.72***ψ
Mono 0.60 0.58 -0.39ψ
Diseases 0.40 0.42 -0.39ψ
Off-farm ratio 0.20 0.37 4.72***ψ
Soil 0.63 0.75 2.35**ψ

Notes: ***, **, * indicate statistical significance at the 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 level respectively
ψ
Z-test for the equality of two proportions

Source: Own estimates; data appendix available from authors.

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Rice Production per hectare per crop

Table 5 showed the descriptive statistics of the main variables in the rice production model for
the polluted and non-polluted areas. Although soil quality in the non-polluted area was
significantly (P < 0.05) lower than that in the polluted area, rice productivity and profit in the
non-polluted area was significantly (P < 0.01) higher than those in the polluted area. The price
of rice in the polluted area was significantly (P < 0.01) lower than that in the non-polluted area.
This indicated that water pollution might have reduced crop quality, and in turn its price. The
difference in the off-farm income ratio between the two areas suggests that farmers are aware
of the reduced profit from rice cultivation in polluted soil, and therefore have a tendency to
find additional work in nearby industrial parks to supplement their income.

Other variables measured did not significantly differ between the two regions (Table 5), except
the percentage of respondents attending training. The results also showed that, on average,
farmers were 48 years old, have had 6 years of education and 60 % of them grew rice in a
monoculture.
74 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

5. Estimated results

5.1. Impact of water pollution on rice productivity

Table 6 showed the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) result of rice production function in translog
form. The variables estimated in the model were statistically significant at 1 percent level. The
estimated R-square was equal to 0.64, revealing the 64 percent change of rice yield possibly
explained by independent variables in the model.

Variables Coef. t-value Variables Coef. t-value

ln(Cs) 0.696 0.87 ln(Ch)×ln(Cp) 0.007 0.7

ln(Ch) -0.123 -0.8 ln(Ch)×ln(Cl) 0.021 1.49

ln(Cf) 0.465 0.84 ln(Ch)×ln(Cc) 0.008 0.35

ln(Cp) -0.157 -0.59 ln(Cf)×ln(Cp) 0.060 1.5

ln(Cl) 0.851** 2.55 ln(Cf)×ln(Cl) -0.026 -0.56

ln(Cc) 0.572 1.3 ln(Cf)×ln(Cc) -0.022 -0.27

½ ln(Cs)2 0.532*** 2.72 ln(Cp)×ln(Cl) -0.031 -1.41

½ ln(Ch)2 0.000 0.03 ln(Cp)×ln(Cc) 0.029 0.71

½ ln(Cf)2 0.037 1.13 ln(Cl)×ln(Cc) -0.023 -0.58

½ ln(Cp)2 -0.011 -0.66 Age -0.002** -2.07

½ ln(Cl)2 0.059* 1.81 Education 0.004 1.1

½ ln(Cc) 2
0.075 1.07 Training 0.039** 2.07

ln(Cs)×ln(Ch) 0.014 0.54 Disease -0.012 -0.67

ln(Cs)×ln(Cf) -0.132 -1.34 Mono 0.016 0.7

ln(Cs)×ln(Cp) -0.057 -1.08 Soil 0.031 1.64

ln(Cs)×ln(Cl)) -0.105* -1.83 Off-farm ratio -0.054* -1.93

ln(Cs)×ln(Cc) -0.216* -1.87 Pollution -0.127*** -6.68

ln(Ch)×ln(Cf) -0.025 -0.7 Constant -5.615** -2.26

R-square 0.64
Included observation 364

Notes: ***, **, * indicate statistical significance at the 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 level respectively

Source: Own estimates; data appendix available from authors.

Table 6. The OLS regression of rice production function

The study also examined the null hypothesis in (7) that there was a proportional output change
when inputs in the model were varied or farms produce rice with constant returns to scale.
The restricted least squares regression with the null hypothesis of constant returns to scale was
estimated. The computed F statistic was 37.09 more than the critical value F (7, 327) of 2.69 at
 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 75
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

1 percent level of significance 1). Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected and the study concluded
that technology did not exhibit constant returns to scale.

The second test was applied to check the Cobb-Douglass formal existence of the production
function. The restricted function was estimated with the null hypothesis of jointed parameters
in (8) equal to 0. The computed F statistic of 1.94 was more than the critical F(21,327) of 1.91 at
1 percent level of significance 1). Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected, meaning that the
translog functional form was suitably applied for the data of rice production in the study.

The results of Table 6 showed that there was no multicollinearity in the independent variables
of production function because the correlations of these independent variables estimated by
using the correlation matrix were less than 70 percent. The null hypothesis homoscedasticity
was also accepted by using Breusch-Pagan test because the estimated LM of 49.72 was less
2
than the critical χ36 of 57.34 at the level of 1 percent 2).

Table 6 showed that the rice productivity in the polluted was lower than in the non-polluted
area because the coefficient of Pollution variable was significantly negative at 1 percent level.
In addition, the study also revealed that training courses partly contributed an increase in rice
yield since the coefficient of Training variable was significantly positive.

Moreover, the model also showed that farmer age (P < 0.05) and the ratio of off-farm income
(P < 0.1) explained variation in rice yield. The effect of age might have been caused by declines
in the health of older farmers leading to less efficient cultivation. Farmers who earned more
off-farm income were associated with less profitable rice cultivation. Our interviews with the
farmers in the polluted region suggested that when rice production was no longer profitable,
farmers tended to sell their land as construction land or rent their land to farmers from other
regions. Local farmers also attempted to secure employment in the nearby industrial parks,
from which they could earn more money than compared to rice cultivation. The study also
discovered that water pollution made farmers change rice cultivation and crop intensification
techniques. Before their income was mainly from rice production with three rice crops per
year, now they do rice farming as part-time jobs, only grow one or two crops per year and
harvest rice just enough for home consumption. These possibly were the suitable explanations
for the negative impact of off-farm income on rice productivity.

The reduced productivity of rice was calculated based on findings from Table 6. After the
equation (5) was used to eliminate the effects of other factors, the estimated yield in the non-
polluted area was about 5.61 tons and around 4.94 tons for the polluted region. Then, the loss
of rice yield due to polluted water irrigation was estimated by subtracting the yield in the
polluted from yield in the non-polluted region (equation 5). Using this approach, the estimated
result was about 0.67 tons per hectare per crop (5.61 tons – 4.94 tons).

5.2. Increase in rice production cost due to water pollution

Table 7 showed R-square was equal to 0.56, revealing the variation of total rice costs of 56
percent was explained by independent variables in the model. The study also showed that the
multicollinearity among the independent variables in cost function did not exist because the
76 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

results estimated by correlation matrix approach showed that there were no correlations in
these independent variables higher than 70 percent. The result of Breusch-Pagan test per‐
2
formed that the estimated LM of 14.96 was less than the critical χ12 of 26.22 at the level of 1
percent, revealing the absence of heterscedasticity in the estimate of cost function 2).

Variables Coefficient t-value

ln(Ws) 0.195*** 3.95

ln(Wh) 0.021 0.84

ln(Wf) 0.431*** 5.5

ln(Wp) 0.007 0.27

ln(Y) 0.918*** 14.79

Age 0.002* 1.9

Education -0.008 -1.55

Training -0.058** -2.02

Diseases 0.045 1.62

Rice monoculture 0.143*** 4.72

Soil -0.032 -1.08

Pollution 0.098*** 3.3

Constant 6.140*** 22.84

Statistic summary

R-square 0.56

Included observation 364

Notes: ***, **, * indicate statistical significance at the 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 level
respectively

Source: Own estimates; data appendix available from authors.

Table 7. The OLS regression of rice cost function

The coefficient of Pollution variable was statistically significant positive at level of 1 percent,
performing rice costs in the polluted region was higher than one in the non-polluted region.
Moreover, farmers, who were older, managed their production cost more highly and less
efficiently, performed by the positive effect of Age variable on total costs at 10 percent level.
The significantly positive coefficient of Rice monoculture variable (P < 0.01) revealed that
farmers who grew rice monoculture cost more than ones who cultivated rice rotation or
intercropping. Possible explanation is that the cropping system of rice monoculture decreased
the fertility of soil.
Like the calculation of yield loss, cost increase due to water pollution was estimated using the
coefficients performed in Table 7. After the effect of other factors were eliminated, total cost
was estimated about VND 10.37 million for rice production in the polluted area and VND 9.4
 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 77
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

per ha per crop for that in the non-polluted area. Cost increase was estimated by subtracting
the rice cost in the non-polluted region by the rice cost in the polluted area (equation 11). Using
this approach, an increase in cost due to water pollution was calculated around VND 0.97
million per ha per crop (See Table 10).

5.3. Total loss of net economic return

Table 8 showed the coefficients from the OLS regression of the rice profit model using the
translog profit functional form (equation 16). The full model was statistically significant at the
1% level. The estimated R-square revealed that 50% of the variation in the rice profit was
explained by the model.

Next, we tested the null hypothesis of the Cobb-Douglass functional form. The restricted
function was estimated assuming the null hypothesis that the joint parameters in (17) are 0.
The computed F statistic of 1.78 was more than the critical F(55,283) value of 1.57 at the 1 percent
level 1). The null hypothesis was therefore rejected, which supported the use of the translog
functional form in this study. The estimate of profit function also showed the absence of
multicollinearity (the correlations of independent variables less than 70 percent) and of
2
heterscedasticity (Breusch-Pagan test showed the critical χ74 of 105.2 at the level of 1 percent
higher than the computed LM of 100.24) 2).

The coefficient of Pollution variable representing the effect of pollution was negative and
significant (P < 0.01), which confirmed that water pollution reduced the profit of rice cultiva‐
tion. The reduction in rice profit was calculated using the coefficients presented in Table 8. The
estimated profit was approximately VND 9.14 million for rice cultivation in the polluted area
and VND 12.34 million for that in the non-polluted area after the influences of other factors
were eliminated. The loss of rice profit due to wastewater irrigation was estimated by sub‐
tracting the rice profit in the polluted region by the rice profit in the non-polluted region
(equation 15). Using this approach, the loss of profit was calculated to be approximately VND
3.2 million per hectare per crop (see Table 10).

Like the results of rice yield loss, this model also performed that farmer age (P < 0.01), attending
training (P < 0.01) and the ratio of off-farm income (P < 0.1) explained variation in profit.
Moreover, soil quality was also an important factor affecting profit (P<0.1).

We also used the same estimate of profit loss due to water pollution to calculate reductions in
profit caused by other factors as presented in Table 9. Cultivation in non-fertile soil, instead of
fertile soil, could reduce rice profit by 8.24%. Farmers whose main sources of income were
from non-agricultural sectors obtained 11.45% less rice profit than those who only had an
agricultural income. Participating in trainings was estimated to increase profit by 13.03%.
Profit loss caused by water pollution was much higher than the profit loss caused by other
factors, which demonstrates that environment pollution has a great significance for rice
farmers near industrial parks. Because of this, we suggest that the Vietnamese authorities
should place a greater importance on the development and implementation of pollution
control policies.
78 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

Variables Coef. t-value Variables Coef. t-value

ln(Ws*) -0.111 -0.02 ln(Wp*)×ln(Cc) 0.162 0.92

ln(Wh*) 1.211 0.54 ln(Cs) -3.393 -0.72

ln(Wf*) -3.869 -0.71 ln(Ch) -0.540 -0.34

ln(Wp*) -0.698 -0.29 ln(Cf) 3.341 0.99

½ ln( Ws*) 2
0.322 0.68 ln(Cp) -2.241 -1.16

½ ln( Wh*) 2
-0.019 -0.15 ln(Cl) 2.890 1.51

½ ln( Wf*) 2
-1.245** -1.99 ln(Cc) 1.432 0.37

½ ln( Wp*)2 0.223 1.58 ½ ln(Cs)2 0.338 0.61

ln(Ws*)×ln(Wh*) -0.017 -0.09 ½ ln(Ch)2 0.012 0.18

ln(Ws*)×ln(Wf*) -0.257 -0.50 ½ ln(Cf)2 -0.117 -0.47

ln(Ws*)×ln(Wp*) -0.042 -0.22 ½ ln(Cp) 2

0.013 0.18

ln(Wh*)×ln(Wf*) 0.231 0.91 ½ ln(Cl) 2

0.123 1.44

ln(Wh*)×ln(Wp*) 0.030 0.28 ½ ln(Cc) 2

-0.107 -0.52

ln(Wf*)×ln(Wp*) 0.005 0.02 ln(Cs)×ln(Ch) -0.113 -0.80

ln(Ws*)×ln(Cs) -0.648* -1.96 ln(Cs)×ln(Cf) 0.500* 1.73

ln(Ws*)×ln(Ch) 0.181 1.32 ln(Cs)×ln(Cp) 0.013 0.06

ln(Ws*)×ln(Cf) 0.586** 2.01 ln(Cs)×ln(Cl)) -0.250 -1.56

ln(Ws*)×ln(Cp) -0.165 -0.96 ln(Cs)×ln(Cc) -0.149 -0.48

ln(Ws*)×ln(Cl) 0.079 0.56 ln(Ch)×ln(Cf) -0.130 -1.19

ln(Ws*)×ln(Cc) 0.029 0.08 ln(Ch)×ln(Cp) 0.054 0.93

ln(Wh*)×ln(Cs) -0.314 -1.62 ln(Ch)×ln(Cl) 0.148** 2.33

ln(Wh*)×ln(Ch) -0.064 -0.80 ln(Ch)×ln(Cc) 0.012 0.10

ln(Wh*)×ln(Cf) -0.124 -0.84 ln(Cf)×ln(Cp) -0.137 -1.08

ln(Wh*)×ln(Cp) 0.087 0.89 ln(Cf)×ln(Cl) -0.055 -0.41

ln(Wh*)×ln(Cl) 0.115 1.41 ln(Cf)×ln(Cc) -0.568** -2.46

ln(Wh*)×ln(Cc) 0.244 1.63 ln(Cp)×ln(Cl) -0.140** -2.07

ln(Ws*)×ln(Cs) 0.533 1.01 ln(Cp)×ln(Cc) 0.192 1.45

ln(Wf*)×ln(Ch) -0.376* -1.83 ln(Cl)×ln(Cc) -0.025 -0.22

ln(Wf*)×ln(Cf) -0.609 -1.63 Age -0.006*** -2.63

ln(Wf*)×ln(Cp) -0.104 -0.45 Education 0.010 1.22

ln(Wf*)×ln(Cl) 0.106 0.47 Training 0.140*** 2.90

ln(Wf*)×ln(Cc) -0.529 -1.26 Disease 0.016 0.35

ln(Wp*)×ln(Cs) 0.025 0.12 Mono 0.003 0.06

 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 79
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

Variables Coef. t-value Variables Coef. t-value

ln(Wp*)×ln(Ch) -0.010 -0.15 Soil 0.086* 1.75

ln(Wp*)×ln(Cf) -0.164 -1.11 Off-farm ratio -0.126* -1.73

ln(Wp*)×ln(Cp) 0.107 1.14 Pollution -0.300*** -5.81

ln(Wp*)×ln(Cl) -0.098 -1.22 Constant -20.213 -0.60

R-square 0.50

Included observation 364

Table 8. The OLS regression of rice profit function

Percentage of
Reduced profit
Factors reduced profit
(Thousand VND)
(%)

Polluted vs. Non-polluted area 3,203 25.95

Non-fertile vs. Fertile soil 874 8.24

Non-training vs. Training 1,465 13.03

The highest off-farm vs. Zero off-farm income ratio 1,229 11.45

Source: Own estimates; data appendix available from authors.

Table 9. Reduced profit in rice farming and key constraints

Table 10 summarized the total loss of rice production due to water pollution. The estimated
results showed there were about 26 percent of profit loss, including around 12 percent of
reduced quantity (yield loss) and 9 percent of cost increase, adversely caused by industrial
water pollution. In this study, we also observed that farmers in the polluted area use water
irrigation from the highest water tide level to reduce the effects of wastewater on rice produc‐
tion. This was because the farmers thought the water at the high tide level looked less polluted
than the waters at other times, despite the fact that the water was always heavily polluted near
the industrial parks.

Amount Percent

Quantity loss 0.67 tons/ha 12%

Cost increase 0.97 million VND/ha 9%

Total loss of net economic return 3.2 million VND/ha 26%

Source: Own estimates; data appendix available from authors.

Table 10. Impact of water pollution on rice production

80 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

Moreover, the use of polluted water also caused the farmers to change their cultivation
management. In previous years, three rice crops were produced annually and rice cultivation
was the main income source. However, because of pollution, only one or two rice crops is now
cultivated in the polluted area each year, and farmers treat rice cultivation as a part-time job,
producing rice sufficient only for household consumption.
During our study, we also received reports of skin diseases on the farmers working in the
polluted region. For instance, a farmer in the polluted area reported that he had suffered from
skin disease 5 days per year, and the treatment cost VND 500,000. The diseases also caused the
loss of 2.5 workdays, equivalent to VND 250,000. Therefore, the estimate of total economic loss
is underestimated if indirect costs such as the health costs suffered by farmers are not included.

6. Conclusions and policy implication

Local authorities in Vietnam have recently removed or reduced some of the environmental
impact requirements to attract industrial investments to their province. Although industrial
investments with low environmental standards might increase gross domestic product and
create more jobs for local households, they may also bring many problems including water,
air and soil pollution. This study provides an example of the negative impacts that arise from
pollution by industries.
In this study, we surveyed rice farmers in two areas with the same natural environment
conditions, social characteristics (e.g. the same social and farming culture, ethnicity, type
of soil), and only differed with respect to pollution. One area was considered to be the
polluted area, receiving wastewater from nearby industrial parks, while the other area
was assumed to be the non-polluted area, being distant from sources of industrial pollu‐
tants. The productivity loss of rice production caused by water pollution was estimated
by the difference in rice yield between the two regions. The similar calculation was ap‐
plied for cost increase and profit loss for using wastewater irrigation. The results showed
that the yield loss of rice was about 0.67 tons per hectare per crop, VND 0.97 million for
cost increase and totally 26 percent of profit loss due to water pollution. Therefore, since
the study includes 214 farmers in the polluted area and these 214 farmers cultivate rice in
148 hectare as a whole, their total cost increase per crop because of water pollution could
be estimated about VND 144 million (VND 0.97 * 148ha) and approximately VND 474
million (VND 3.2 million * 148ha) for their total net economic loss.
According to The World Bank (2007), the development of rice roots and seedlings could be
influenced by using wastewater for irrigation. Polluted water irrigation causes the reduction
of height, leaf area and dry matter. Decrease in leaf surface area leads to the reduction of
photosynthesis. These facts have directly impact on rice production. In other words, the
impacts of polluted water on rice productivity mainly reduce the number of ears unit area,
number of seed per ear and seed weight. The study estimated water pollution caused yield
reduction about 12 percent. This result is nearly equal to the reduced yield of 10 percent in the
sewage-irrigated area in comparison with clear water-irrigated areas estimated by Bai (2004),
 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 81
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

but much lower than the rice reduced productivity of 20 percent calculated by Song (2004) in
the study of Lindhjem (2007) and 30 percent by Chang et al. (2001).

Economic developments that cause damage to natural resources and the environment are
unsustainable. We suggest that the Vietnamese government needs to develop policies that
ensure sustainable development. Similar to environmental policies in developed countries, the
Vietnamese government could consider increasing the current environmental standards and
raising environmental taxes. The increase of environmental taxes could not only encourage
industries to apply new technologies that reduce environmental pollution, but also generate
money to compensate farmers near industrial areas for the damage to their agricultural
production and health and to build wastewater treatment facilities in industrial parks.
Compensation could be provided directly in cash to the farmers, or indirectly by means such
as funding training or activities related to new technologies and the management of agricul‐
tural inputs and expenditure. Our study showed that training helped farmers increase their
profit, which might partly offset some of the losses caused by environmental pollution.

To reduce polluted water from the industrial parks, an increase in the effectiveness of imple‐
mentation of Decision 64 and Circular 07 should be recommended. A public disclosure system
for the environmental performance of polluters mentioned in Article 104 of the Law on
Environmental Protection (dated 2005) and Article 23 of Degree No. 80/2006ND-CP should be
considered as one of the best ways to increase the efficiency of Decision 64 and Circular 07.

Article 104 requires polluters to report and publicize the information and data about the
environment as follows:

• Reports on the environmental impact assessment, decision on approval for reports on the
environmental impact assessment and plan for the implementation of requirements
stipulated in the decision on approval for reports on the environmental impact assessment;

• List of and information about sources of wastes, pollutants that seem potentially harmful
to people’s health and environment;

• Areas where environment is polluted and degraded seriously and extremely seriously, areas
in danger of the environmental pollution.

• Report on the environmental situation at the provincial level, report on environmental

impact assessment by industries, fields and the national report on the environment

• It is essential to ensure unrestricted access to publicized information

• Agencies publicizing information about the environment have to take responsibility on

accuracy, honesty and objectivity of announced information before legal agencies.

Article 23 provides details and instructions on how to implement Article 104 of the Law on
Environmental Protection. These details and instructions include:

• The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment have responsibility for announcing
information and data about the national environment;
82 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

• Ministries and ministerial-level agencies, government agencies shoulder responsibility for

exposing information and data about the environment in industries and areas under their
management;
• Agencies in charge of the environmental protection of People’s Committees at all levels bear
responsibility for make information and data about the environment in the area under their
management publicly;
• Management board of economic zones, industrial parks, export processing zones, managers
of manufacturing and service units accept responsibility for publicizing information and
data about the environment in the area under their management;
• Publicity of information and data about the environment is stipulated as follows:
• Information and data about the environment is publicized in form of books, news in
newspapers or post on units’ websites;
• Information and data about the environment is publicized in form of books, news in
newspapers or post on units’ websites (if any), reported in people’s council meetings,
announced on notice boards in residential quarter meetings, or listed in headquarters of
units or headquarters of commune, ward, town people’s committee where units are in
operation.

The requirements of these above public disclosure system illustrate a new and significant
approach for environmental authorities to force environmental laws and regulations in strong
manner by increasing environmental awareness and permitting the large public to put
pressure on polluters to solve current environmental problems. Such public disclosure
requirements also create significant pressure on environmental authorities themselves as their
own decision failures might also be widely recognized by such requirements. However, the
implementation of these requirements in a clear, precise, and systematic manner is strongly
needed.
Since water treatment facilities in these industrial parks must be built as soon as possible, the
study on their cost effectiveness could be needed and seriously considered to decide whether
we should build the water treatment facilities in every individual factory or for the whole
industrial parks. Moreover, we suggest that the government should not use high-yield
agricultural land for the construction of new industrial parks unless they include the latest
pollution treatment technologies. The impact of environmental pollution should continue to
be evaluated.

Notes

(RSSR − RSSU ) / J
1)
Calculated by the formula F = , where RSSR and RSSU are the restricted and
RS SU / ( N − K )
unrestricted sums of squared residuals, J is the number of restrictions, N is the number of
observations, and K is the number of parameters in an unrestricted function.
 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 83
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

2)
Breusch-Pagan test for heterscedasticity:
LM = nR 2 ∼ Χ 2
k

where: n is the number of observations

^ | = δ̃ + δ̃ X + δ̃ X + ..... + δ̃ X + ṽ
R2 is the R-Square of | u i 0 1 1i 2 2i k ki i

k is the number of restricted factors

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to Dr. Benoit Laplante, a long-standing resource per‐
son with EEPSEA, and Dr Herminia Francisco, a director of EEPSEA, for their invaluable
comments and suggestions in shaping the structure of the study and data analyses. Our
warmest thanks go to EESEA for sponsoring the study, to Mr. Joseph Arbiol in our laborato‐
ry for reading the draft of the manuscript, and to our colleagues at Can Tho University for
assisting in data collection.

Author details

Huynh Viet Khai1 and Mitsuyasu Yabe2

1 Can Tho University, Vietnam

2 Kyushu University, Japan

References

[1] Bai, Y. (1988). Pollution of irrigation water and its effects, Beijing, China, Beijing
Agriculture University Press: Beijing Agriculture University Press.
[2] Bateman, I. J, Carson, R. T, Day, B, Hanemann, M, Hanley, N, Hett, T, Lee, M. J, Loomes,
G, Mourato, S, Ozdemiroglu, E, Pearce, D. W, Sugden, R, & Swanson, J. (2003).
Economic Valuation With Stated Preference Techniques Edward Elgar Publishing,
London.
[3] Chang, Y, Hans, M. S, & Haakon, V. (2001). The Environmental Cost of Water Pollution
in Chongqing, China. Environment and Development Economics , 6(313-333)
[4] Do, T. N, & Bennett, J. Would wet biodiversity conservation improve social welfare? A
case study in Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta, International Conference on Sustainable
Development: Challanges and Opportunities for GMS,
84 International Perspectives on Water Quality Management and Pollutant Control

[5] Hung, P. T, Tuan, B. A, & Chinh, N. T. (2008). The Impact of Trade Liberalization on
Industrial Pollution: Empirical Evidence from Vietnam the Economy and Environment
Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA).

[6] ICEM ((2007). Analysis of Pollution from Manufacturing Sectors in Vietnam Interna‐
tional Centre for Environmental Management, Indooroopily, Queenland.

[7] Khai, H. V, & Yabe, M. (2011). Evaluation of the Impact of Water Pollution on Rice
Production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. The International Journal of Environmental,
Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability , 7(5)

[8] Khai, H. V, & Yabe, M. (2012). Rice Yield Loss Due to Industrial Pollution in Vietnam.
Journal of US-China Public Administration , 9(3)

[9] Kompas, T. (2004). Market Reform, Productivity and Efficiency in Vietnamese Rice
Production. International and Development Economics Working Papers, Asia Pacific
School of Economics and Governmnet, Australian National University, Australia.

[10] Lang, V. T, Vinh, K. Q, & Truc, N. T. T. (2009). Environmental Consequences of and

Pollution Control Options for Pond "Tra" Fish Production in Thotnot District, Can Tho
city, Vietnam The Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA).

[11] Lindhjem, H. (2007). Emvironmental Economic Impact Assessment in China: Problems

and Prospects. Environmnetal Impact Assessment Review , 27(1)

[12] Linh, H. V. (2007). Efficiency of Rice Farming Households in Vietnam: A DEA With
Bootstrap and Stochastic Frontier Application. University of Minnessota, Minesota,
USA.

[13] Nga, B. T, Giao, N. T, & Nu, P. V. (2008). Effects of Waste Water From Tra Noc Industrial
Zone on Adjacent Rivers in Can Tho City. Scientific journal of Can Tho University , 9(2)

[14] Quang, M. N. (2001). An Evaluation of the Chemical Pollution in Vietnam.Retrieved

May 19, 2011, from http://www.mekonginfo.org/mrc_en/doclib.nsf/
38bfa13a79f297d2c72566170044aaf9/1d952c500be72dc587256b74000703c8?OpenDocu‐
ment

[15] Rahman, S. (2002). Profit Efficiency Among Bangladeshi Rice Farmers. Food Policy ,
28(5-6)

[16] Reddy, V. R, & Behera, B. (2006). Impact of Water Pollution on Rural Communities: An
Economic Analysis. Ecological Economics , 58(3)

[17] Resource and Environment department of Can Tho city ((2008). Report on the situation
of Environment in Can Tho City.

[18] Surjit, S. S, & Carlos, A. B. (1981). Estimating Farm-Level Input Demand and Wheat
Supply in the Indian Punjab Using a Translog Profit Function. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics , 63(2)
 Impact of Industrial Water Pollution on Rice Production in Vietnam 85
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54279

[19] The World Bank ((2007). Cost of Pollution in China- Economic Estimates of Physical
Damages.

[20] The World Bank ((2008). Handling Serious Environmnetal Polluters in Vietnam:
Review of Implementation and Recommendations.

[21] Thong, L. Q, & Ngoc, N. A. (2004). Incentives for Wastewater Management in Industrial
Estates in Vietnam the Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia
(EEPSEA).

[22] Tim, C. D. S. P, & Battese, G. E. (2005). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity

Analysis, New York, Springer Science.

[23] Tuyen, B. C. (2010). Strategy of Vietnam towards addressing Environment and Climate
risks.
View publication stats